Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TBrandley

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

To remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 05:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 00:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC).

---

• TBrandley (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Usoers signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

In 2012 alone, the editor has created at least 35 articles, templates, and categories that were deleted by the community, largely due to non-notability and violations of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Other editors have provided information about WP policies on the user's talk page. (There have also been problems related to copyright violation, sockpuppetry, and 3RR.) Despite the efforts of the community, the editor has shown a pattern of violating WP:DISRUPT. The entire pattern raises questions about WP:COMPETENCE.

Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

The editor should voluntarily agree to not create any new articles, templates, or categories for one month, while he spends more time learning about WP policies. Alternately, the editor should be blocked for one month, while he spends more time learning about WP policies. The outcome should also apply to associated accounts, e.g., User:Tate.B.Stockwell, and IP edits.

Description

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. Editors writing this section should not normally add additional views below.}

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Here is a list of articles, templates, and categories created by the editor in 2012, and deleted by the community. As of 28 Feb 2012--other deletions are pending.

List of shows that started as midseason replacements

The Harpreet Singh Show

List of programs broadcast by ABC Spark

Disney XD (Russia)

List of The Unsellables episodes

Wipeout (Danish game show)

Wipeout (Croatian game show)

The Flintstones (2013 TV series)

Tina Belcher

TV Parental Guidelines (Tateland)

Mr. Bean's Christmas Vacation

Disney Channel (Kazakhstan)

The Speckerman Recurrence

Flat 2, 12 Arbour Road, London, England

Fox VOD

Category:Animation Domination

The Loser List: Revenge of the Loser

Springfield Road, Kelowna

Call 2 Win

Logopedia

District Policing Partnerships

Disney Channel (Kazakhstan)

4Rivers Smokehouse

Bob Belcher

FOX (Tateland)

List of television series notable for positive reception

List of TV-14 episodes of The Simpsons

Applicable policies and guidelines

{List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:GNG
2. WP:RS
3. WP:DISRUPT
4. WP:COMPETENCE

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(Provide diffs of the comments. As with anywhere else on this RfC/U, links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

As of 28 Feb 2012, there are 88 entries on the user's talk page.

[1]

Attempts by certifier Logical Cowboy

1. [2]
2. [3]

See [4] for many other attempts.

Attempts by certifier JayJay

1. I gave TB a belated welcome here
2. I also gave TB warnings NOT to remove the speedy delete template here and here
3. I also notified TB for Speedy Deletion and AfD here and here

I have also nominated and participated in numerous deletion discussions for multiple content made by this user. JayJay^{Talk to me} 03:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Attempts by certifier MrSchimpf

1. I advised the user that circular links to Wikipedia articles as sources are not allowed, as placed in Fox's Animation Domination.
2. In a AfD I elected to start for their article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of TV-14 episodes of The Simpsons, I went beyond the usual template and advised the user to read up on our inclusion guidelines, as the standards of making an article based on parental guidance ratings went beyond the pale of the unofficial essay Wikipedia:Fancruft.
3. I have constantly had to police the Animation Domination article as the user insists on placing programming grids, unsourced information and suppositions based on synthesis of sources to meet their views, when we have many policies such as WP:NOT#DIR that do not allow this. User also added hatnotes to sections in the same article, which I have had to remove, and insists on using non-neutral promotional sources such as that block's Facebook page to source the article rather than neutral industry media.
4. Not personally involved, but the editor is constantly editing program infoboxes which have had a structure that has remained in place through consensus on talk page for years, but user adds extra fields without questions or permission via the talk page. Even as a seven-year editor on the Project I know not to mess with any infobox coding without explicit consensus or permission since one wrong character messes up a whole lotta pages.
5. User created the redirect Wikipedia Home Page, which is ridiculous since there are two-four links to the front page on every page of the site.
6. Nominated Disney Channel Hong Kong for deletion, but oddly created the redirect DCHK (deleted as impossible redirect; Disney Channel never identifies as "DC") during the nomination.
7. Created Category:Television series by Force Four Entertainment, when the company has no Wikipedia presence to begin with, along with articles about that producer's shows which can best be described solely as existing and nothing more, airing on cable networks in low-profile timeslots and would be good redirect candidates.
8. Also should be noted that poor-quality Google Translate versions of the Animation Domination articles created by this user have been speedied multiple times by the German, French, Italian, Dutch and Japan Wikipedias, with the Russian version ascertaining the notability of the article in their version.

The user has also begun a Wikiproject called WikiProject Programming Blocks, which is devoted solely to a niche subject which only would attract only editors looking to add unsourced minutia to articles and would be better served as a part of WikiProject Television for sure, as very few even think about programming blocks outside of network executives and television industry experts. Especially after the user leveled a wrongly used personal attack template at me in an AfD for a rationale I thought was appropriate, I feel the user would be well served for some kind of mentoring and article creation limits, or sanctions. Nate • (chatter) 11:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Other attempts

1. I tried to discuss WP:GNG with TBrandley here.
2. I warned TBrandley about PROD or XfD deletions of his articles due to lack of notability on many occasions: [5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12].
3. I warned TBrandley about adding the {{good article}} to random articles here and directed him to criteria for good articles, how to nominate them, and suggested he look at some Arts/TV articles to understand what a Good Article should look like. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 02:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Logical Fuzz (talk) 02:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
2. JayJay^{Talk to me} 03:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
3. Nate • (chatter) 11:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
4. jcnJohn Chen (Talk-Contib.) RA 12:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

1. Evidence is pretty clear this editor needs to take a break on article creation. Nobody Ent 23:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
2. I strongly agree with the statements by Logical Cowboy. Editor TBrandley needs an extended break where he can read up on notability, reliable sources, WP:OC, WP:CRYSTAL, and other guidelines so he can become a constructive member of the Wiki community. Editor seems to have a problem understanding "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and instead he uses Wiki, primary sources, and obscure blogs when he does add sources. In addition to the list of Evidence of disputed behavior above, I would like to add the following 9 deleted or redirected articles & categories: Category:Articles waiting for more information to be released, Template:Infobox snack (TfD here. He has since recreated it as a redirect), Category:Bob's Burgers templates, Bunheads‎, Baby Daddy (TV series), 100 Greatest Cartoons, TB Network, List of programs broadcast by Joytv 10, List of programs broadcast by Joytv 11 --Logical Fuzz (talk) 02:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
3. Agreed. One or two such articles would be a sign of clueless newbie-ism and a sign that the user needs some guidance, but dozens of them is a sign of an intentionally abusive user. Using the personal attack template against another voter in an AFD was grotesquely inappropriate and killed any possibility this user could have possibly been acting in misguided good faith. Strongly suggest a block if TBrandley does not voluntarily discontinue article creation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
4. As someone who has taken a few of this editor's articles through the deletion processes, I can agree that the user needs to invest some time in understanding WP:N, WP:NOT, and get familiar with the difference between appropriate and inappropriate article subjects. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 21:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Response

Okay, I'll read Wikipedia's guidelines to become a better member of the Wikipedia community. --TBrandley (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Views

This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add a view of the dispute. Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.